Religion and Individualism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

jerseydevil's argument that societies create morals is not true. Societies may choose to emphasize one or more aspects of the moral in their structure and treatment. Societies do not create their values. For example, the reference to the Episcopal Church and homosexuality is a case in point. The ECUSA has alleged a change in emphasis based on the allegations that justice trumps sexual morals of millenia. The Anglican Communion has said "no" and refer to the statement on human sexuality at Lambeth 1998. At the upcoming Primate's meeting in Dublin, it is likely that the Anglican Communion will split over the self-will of the ECUSA and the refusal of its bishops to submit to the 1998 statement and the Windsor Report 2004. The ECUSA assert a new emphasis; the Communion says, "no". If ECUSA persists, it may have to walk alone for its error by choosing self-will over common morality.

Isn't the church a society though? Whether it's secular or religious - there are still people determining the morals that must be followed. As with the split between the Catholic Chruch and the what laster became the Lutheran Chruch - there could very well be a new religion that develops over the issue of gay priests. However - it is still a society that that is determining this moral question - not just one person.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, IR, a famous man once said, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone." Thereby establishing the Source and Origin of Good, eternal existence, and His identity with it. Hardly a limited definition! That man was Jesus of Nazareth, bar-Joseph. You have heard of Him?

Im thinking theres other definitions of the word. What we may percieve as "evil" can be "good" from a different perspective.

[katya]

This is a really interesting thread! Let's see if I have anything good to add...

I suppose one could say that a person's sense of morality is determined by "environment". That could be society, religious belief, upbringing, any other sort of something telling you what's right or wrong, and they may conflict, so we choose, one way or another, what to belive ourselves. But, if you're looking at it from a naturalist point of view, our decisions are based on environment, biology, etc. anyway.

As for myself... I don't have any religious beliefs, and I don't have any society beliefs either. What I mean is, I see that society's view on morals differ between societies, and so there is no sort of universal code. So...

Has anyone heard of Avatar? (no, not the little pictures next to your username..) It seems kind of stupid to me, and I'm not saying I follow it, but what it is is trying to erase all the pre-programmed societal ideas that we've developed, and find the truth starting from nothing. It *almost* makes sense (I misspelled "sense" as snese- sounds like SNES.^^) in theory, but I don't think it's really that possible.

Where do I find my beliefs? (They asked me that in my exchange student interviews- I should've just said something simple like "from my parents".^^; ) It's almost avatar, but not. Because, as I said, I don't want to take something as absolute just because the majority of people believe it. So, I am an easily influenced human heart, and I take a lot of my morals from various sources that I feel comfortable with, and go by instinct, trying to make a concious effort to decide on them myself. But, I also think about morals as not something to do "just because it's right" (or "because God said so" for that matter) but based on whether it's going to make anyone (myself of others) happy. I think it's stupid to say something is "good" or "moral" just because God said it is, if it doesn't do any good. I don't believe in anything that reigns supreme over the universe and can tell us what to do. Like a king- he doesn't really have any actual power- he only does because the people listen to him (because he has power. But it's not some mystical "right"). So, I don't think there is such a thing as morality for the sake of morality. I believe in morality of making life more happy, or as I've decided is more attainable, beautiful. That, and my "heart", so to speak, which believes what it wants thanks to society and biology and so on.

So, in the end, I'm following Buddhism not because I think it is correct, but because I think, from experience, that it makes me happier. I am the most selfish person in the world (but aren't we all?) and I'm the devil-child like my mom seems to think.

EDIT: and that was my 1000th post and I forgot about it... Well, I guess it's ok then.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

I agree with that as it chimes in with my view of morals as "absolute"; of course I don't deny the influence of one's environment, but I think that this influence is the real clouding of moral judgment. I further believe that people who grow under "bad" influence can come back into contact with this "conscience" through religion.

That's excactly how I think, but I also think there are other ways to reconnect to conscience without religion. (i.e. introspection again) Religion can be a good base for many people, but a true individual may have to reject some religious details.

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Here's where I disagree:

it's obvious from what you say here:

that you believe in God. But if you believe that God created you and gave you reason and soul, then why shouldn't you give Him credit for your knowledge?

My belief in God is casual. (I know hearing this aggravates most hardcore Catholics.) To quote Curly from City Slickers, "It's like praying--it can't hurt," but at the same time it doesn't hurt to consider that I might be praying in vain if there's nothing really there. I don't think I should be hugely dedicated to a religion that I feel has it only mostly right, esspecially when it calls me a bad person for simply acknowlegding the possibility of no God. (A God is less likely than blah blah blah you know what I mean, and you might say 'that's why you need faith,' and I'd reply 'how can I get faith from scratch?' That's the loop I'm now stuck in and that's why I don't think it's my fault, and it's not a sin.) And I really hate to make myself sound so negative, but this is really the bit of hipocracy I see in religion: that God granted us reason, but we're damned if we apply it to him; that we should disregard it and follow him either whole-heartedly or not at all, and then he screws us. In this sense, religion (well, at least one) denies individualism.

This discrepancy is something I expect will be addressed eventually, but because of the loop that El refered to, change is gradual. You know, the Church has changed its policies officially in the past, so it's not so farfetched of the atheists to think it hasn't got them all right just yet. As for now, though, they call this a sin for me to ponder, so screw them--I'd rather be an individual. (no offense to devoutly religious people; I know that in belonging to the Church by will, it's just because your individual morality agrees with its. Mine happens to not so much.)

Originally Posted by Beren3000

See my previous post with the love and hatred example.

Yes, but I was finding a more specific example. Like if I meet a hateful person, or if a person hates a specific thing or situation, I usually excuse that because maybe their past shaped them that way. I give them the benefit of the doubt. But spite is inexcusable, because anywhere along the way one can stop and think "hey, I'm not being reasonable" and snap out of it, but the don't.

[inked]

Hey, IR, there's a good discussion on that here at Entmoot. The evil and good, reality and perspective, et alia. I'll try to find the link and add it here.

ahh, found this one:http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=...ight=good+evil


and:http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=...ood+evil<br />

thirdly:http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=...ight=good+evil

So we can revive an appropriate one if need be. +

[Embladyne]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

is music art? ive found art is one of the hardest things to define really.

There's a quote I have memorized, because I went to a highschool that focused on the arts, and we talked about art and living all the time....I'm still not sure if I buy this concept, but here goes:
"Art is that which touches upon the universal Human experience."
-Aristotle

[Bombadillo]

Oh, I just realized six people posted while I was composing my last post.

Let me respond:

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Isn't the church a society though? Whether it's secular or religious - there are still people determining the morals that must be followed. As with the split between the Catholic Chruch and the what laster became the Lutheran Chruch - there could very well be a new religion that develops over the issue of gay priests. However - it is still a society that that is determining this moral question - not just one person.

I think Inked means to emphasize that societies don't create moralities as a whole, both because they only influence individual people's moralities within that society, and those individuals influence/compose society's morality. Am I right, Inked?

I agree with you JD, though, in saying that the Church is a society. But it doesn't restict people to a set of principles for people to follow; it offers one for people to agree to, and if they are very involved even ammend or change as they see fit in accordance with other societies they belong to. (I know you talked about canabalism, but I changed the subject for some reason. :P) I think where you see restriction I see very very gradual change. Getting back again to what El said,

Originally Posted by Elemmire

It seems to me that yes, morality is defined by society. But at the same time, it also seems that society is defined by morality, which makes for a rather unbreakable feedback loop.

...well... I don't think I'd use the word "unbreakable" either. Anyway, when the morality of a society changes, when focus from one value is completely lost while it shifts to another (such as from chastity to freedom dude in the '70s in America), it takes a while for some people to adjust to that change. Once they accept it, society as a whole is ready to change again (like from shunning illigitimate children in the '80s to accepting them as a third of the population now). Then it starts all over again, and this works vica versa as well.

What I'm trying to show is that social standards of decency don't really limit what standards an individual can hold; it just takes a long time for society to get used to that individual.
Maybe an individual's views could seem extremist to society at some point, but that individual isn't actually obligated to change his beliefs to whatever is average; eventually he may, but if he is in the majority with his opinion, then society's standards might change for him.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im thinking theres other definitions of the word. What we may percieve as "evil" can be "good" from a different perspective.

True, there are other definitions of the word. But I don't think any kind of evil can truly be considered good. It may be understandably mistaken for good from one perspective, or be the lesser of two evils, but it never turns out to be good.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, IR, there's a good discussion on that here at Entmoot. The evil and good, reality and perspective, et alia. I'll try to find the link and add it here.

ahh, found this one:http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=...ight=good+evil


and:http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=...ood+evil<br />

thirdly:http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=...ight=good+evil

So we can revive an appropriate one if need be. +

actually I think http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=8026 would be the way to go. That approaches the topic in the broadest sense and thats where youll find my thoughts on the subject laid out rather well. The others seem more specifically about good and evil in literature and in christianity.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Embladyne

There's a quote I have memorized, because I went to a highschool that focused on the arts, and we talked about art and living all the time....I'm still not sure if I buy this concept, but here goes:
"Art is that which touches upon the universal Human experience."
-Aristotle

well i say art is what you want to call art. a lot of people cringe at the thought that brittany spears makes art. and popular art at that! but you have to agree she does. wheres that what is art thread again??

I guess what im getting at is that you need to be careful when you announce the definitiveness of humanity because we pursue art. Art can be seen in almost anything. Art simply reflects what we find to be attractive or intriguing or that touches us in some way and delivers a message to others. so in a way you could say art is about beauty and communication. and when you see it like that you can see the reason for it. even though to us it seems as if art is a higher order activity simply for the intellectual pursuit of doing it.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

art is anything born out of creativity, if even bringing pleasure to yet one being only, it is still bringing pleasure, music, sculpture, dance, drama, paintings, nay one might argue thought itself.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

True, there are other definitions of the word. But I don't think any kind of evil can truly be considered good. It may be understandably mistaken for good from one perspective, or be the lesser of two evils, but it never turns out to be good.

well again it depends on your definitions. If "good" comes (directly or indirectly) from what we consider an "evil" act then is it truly evil? If someone with severely limited intelligence kills someone in cold blood was that an evil act? even if he didnt know any better? when you attack and kill something and it dies cruelly is that evil? but what if its your dinner? its death benefits you. does that suddenly make it NOT an evil act? but if a man does the same to another man because killing the other man is completely to his benefit (just like killing your dinner is) how can that suddenly be evil when the other one isnt? in some cultures public sacrifice was considered what you had to do to make the universe work right for the living. even the sacrificed often went to their deaths happily. were these evil acts of selfishness? owning a man and whipping him when he doesnt do what you tell him to was considered common place even in our culture less then 200 years ago. now it is considered abominably evil. why? is it simply a matter of "well they were wrong and now we are right" or is it simply the vagaries of culture and environment deciding where "evil" stands today.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by inked

Tolkien has shown us these choices in LoTR in the persons of Gollum (corrupted by his choice of self-interest as the sole criterion of life), Boromir (the man yielded to self-will despite his bravery, strength, and virtue, but who redeems his selfish acts), and Galadriel (who offered the choice, chooses to refuse at great personal cost), and in Frodo (who ultimately unable to refuse the Ring is saved by prior moral choices in the form of grace).

Long live William Irwin!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And I think defining love as "christian charity" is a highly limiting definition.

Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by katya

Has anyone heard of Avatar? (no, not the little pictures next to your username..) It seems kind of stupid to me, and I'm not saying I follow it, but what it is is trying to erase all the pre-programmed societal ideas that we've developed, and find the truth starting from nothing. It *almost* makes sense (I misspelled "sense" as snese- sounds like SNES.^^) in theory, but I don't think it's really that possible.

That sounds interesting. I find it more possible than you seem to think.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Yes, but I was finding a more specific example. Like if I meet a hateful person, or if a person hates a specific thing or situation, I usually excuse that because maybe their past shaped them that way. I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Ok, you would excuse them, but you wouldn't think it's good that they hate someone just because it's justified, would you?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well i say art is what you want to call art. a lot of people cringe at the thought that brittany spears makes art. and popular art at that! but you have to agree she does. wheres that what is art thread again??

I guess what im getting at is that you need to be careful when you announce the definitiveness of humanity because we pursue art. Art can be seen in almost anything. Art simply reflects what we find to be attractive or intriguing or that touches us in some way and delivers a message to others. so in a way you could say art is about beauty and communication. and when you see it like that you can see the reason for it. even though to us it seems as if art is a higher order activity simply for the intellectual pursuit of doing it.

Nice definition there. But why does that rule out our superiority as a species? You're saying art is about beauty and communication not about intellect and therefore it's not superior. But how? This "communication" is a communication of ideas, of feelings, of your soul: art is an expression of the soul. So only beings with a soul are capable of creating art (be it Britney Spears or Leonardo Da Vinci), which is why we as humans are superior.

[katya]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

That sounds interesting. I find it more possible than you seem to think.

Somewhat, yeah. After all, my own beliefs are partially based off of it. It's just that the program itself seems a little suspicious. Anyway, I have materials for it all over myself, so maybe I'll look through some of it so I can give you more information.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Long live William Irwin!

Please elaborate.

well theres "love" and then theres "charity" and then theres whatever you define as "christian charity". love is a broad term referring to an emotion. it belies a biological imperative. charity is simply the act of being charitable and can come FROM love sometimes. compassion other times. and selfishness sometimes as well. or perhaps all three at once...

But why does that rule out our superiority as a species? You're saying art is about beauty and communication not about intellect and therefore it's not superior. But how? This "communication" is a communication of ideas, of feelings, of your soul: art is an expression of the soul. So only beings with a soul are capable of creating art (be it Britney Spears or Leonardo Da Vinci), which is why we as humans are superior.

well i fundamentally disagree on several levels. "soul" is a loaded term to me. I have no problem with it if you use it in a way that implies "inner core" or "emotional nature" or something like that. I use it that way too myself. But it sounds to me like you are using it in the strictly religious way. And your argument boils down to well we have a soul therefore we are superior which is a circular argument based on an unverified fact.

Furthermore, art is in the eye of the beholder. broadly, whats art to our species may be irrelevant to other species. but other things may touch them as deeply and as profoundly as this thing we call "art" does for us. so are the inferior simply because what touches them is invisible to us? or what touches us is irrelevant to them? when a bird sings is it not making a form of "art" designed to "touch" his fellow bird in some way? Now you may counter that well birds only do that out of instinct. But then how does it make us superior to do the very same thing only we can be aware of the fact that we are doing it. the purpose of the behavior is still independent from our consciousness of it. ask any artist.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well again it depends on your definitions. If "good" comes (directly or indirectly) from what we consider an "evil" act then is it truly evil? If someone with severely limited intelligence kills someone in cold blood was that an evil act? even if he didnt know any better? when you attack and kill something and it dies cruelly is that evil? but what if its your dinner? its death benefits you. does that suddenly make it NOT an evil act? but if a man does the same to another man because killing the other man is completely to his benefit (just like killing your dinner is) how can that suddenly be evil when the other one isnt? in some cultures public sacrifice was considered what you had to do to make the universe work right for the living. even the sacrificed often went to their deaths happily. were these evil acts of selfishness? owning a man and whipping him when he doesnt do what you tell him to was considered common place even in our culture less then 200 years ago. now it is considered abominably evil. why? is it simply a matter of "well they were wrong and now we are right" or is it simply the vagaries of culture and environment deciding where "evil" stands today.

I think the act itself will always be evil, but the situations you gave showed how they this isn't always so obvious. (I meant that an evil act will always remain evil, regardless or what good it leads to accidentally.) In other words, something can seem good from one person's perspective, but if they looked at it more objectively they'd see the difference between the badness of the act itself and its benificial results.

Of course, the act could be excused if it purposely created lots of good, like if you stole an inhaler from a store to save somebody who chouldn't breathe. From your perspective, you did a completely good thing, but truly it couldn't be classified that way because from the perspective of the store's lawyers you stole, and that's the bottom line so go to jail.

So it sort of depends on perspective, but some perspectives can be wrong or flawed, like the lawyers. Or in the case you provided, people making human sacrifices may not realise that they aren't truly bettering the lives of the living, so what they're doing is still bad.

As for whether or not the standards of good and evil change only with time, I think this is not the case. In the slave days, we simply weren't thinking so objectively as we are and ought to today.

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Ok, you would excuse them, but you wouldn't think it's good that they hate someone just because it's justified, would you?

Hmm... no I wouldn't. You got me! But I mean, if a person cut off your arm, and you hated them for it, you shouldn't feel guilty of doing a 'bad' thing for your hatred. To genuinely love them after that anyway would be extremely good, but it wouldn't be very understanding of me to hold it against you if you hated them.

On the other hand, if you went and hacked off his leg in turn, that would be a dumb act of spite on your part and obviously 'bad.' I think there's an acceptable medium somewhere, neither good nor bad.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well i fundamentally disagree on several levels. "soul" is a loaded term to me. I have no problem with it if you use it in a way that implies "inner core" or "emotional nature" or something like that. I use it that way too myself. But it sounds to me like you are using it in the strictly religious way. And your argument boils down to well we have a soul therefore we are superior which is a circular argument based on an unverified fact.

Furthermore, art is in the eye of the beholder. broadly, whats art to our species may be irrelevant to other species. but other things may touch them as deeply and as profoundly as this thing we call "art" does for us. so are the inferior simply because what touches them is invisible to us? or what touches us is irrelevant to them? when a bird sings is it not making a form of "art" designed to "touch" his fellow bird in some way? Now you may counter that well birds only do that out of instinct. But then how does it make us superior to do the very same thing only we can be aware of the fact that we are doing it. the purpose of the behavior is still independent from our consciousness of it. ask any artist.

You make good points here. It's pretty much the same argument I'f give for communication itself not being the deciding factor in our humanity/superiority.

Studies of meerkats have shown that they scream to each other from across the African plains. They even change tone to alert other meerkats that a lion is coming or they want a mate or their kids are starving. I'd call this communication, and I think I might add that doesn't all communication stem from the soul as an emotional center? (be it fear of a lion, a sexual attraction, a helpless feeling, or in humans "Mommy, I scraped my elbow.")

So it's arguable that animals have communication (primitive as they may seem to us, which we may be mistaken in thinking anyway because they might have elaborate sentences that we don't understand, being in meerkat language and all), and therefore that they have souls.

And actually, it's beauty that they say is in the eye of the beholder. But IMO art is what the beholder reads into it, so we still more or less agree.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by katya

Anyway, I have materials for it all over myself, so maybe I'll look through some of it so I can give you more information.

That would be wonderful!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well theres "love" and then theres "charity" and then theres whatever you define as "christian charity". love is a broad term referring to an emotion. it belies a biological imperative. charity is simply the act of being charitable and can come FROM love sometimes. compassion other times. and selfishness sometimes as well. or perhaps all three at once...

Oh! You misunderstood me. Christian Charity doesn't mean giving out money to the poor and "being charitable". Christian Charity is a broad definition of Love that encompasses basically all humans (not only those of the opposite sex, for example).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

when a bird sings is it not making a form of "art" designed to "touch" his fellow bird in some way?

Not if you ask me. Bombadillo explains this as "communication"; it's their way of talking. When we talk, that's not art, is it?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Studies of meerkats have shown that they scream to each other from across the African plains. They even change tone to alert other meerkats that a lion is coming or they want a mate or their kids are starving. I'd call this communication, and I think I might add that doesn't all communication stem from the soul as an emotional center? (be it fear of a lion, a sexual attraction, a helpless feeling, or in humans "Mommy, I scraped my elbow.")

I beg to differ. What you're saying here about the meekrats is that they can communicate. Big deal! Most animals have been shown to have some sort of communication system, but they use that for the survival of the species. But you wouldn't find a fish (for example) talking to its friend about how it's frustrated in life and how it thinks that it deserves better, etc...
Only humans do that, because humans have a soul.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

EDIT: About how to interperet "thou shalt not kill," I am sure it was intended to address murder, but of course some people will interperet that more literally, because we are individuals. That's fine, not to mention impossible to argue. Ever debate with a creationalist? Remember Emplynx?

I had something else to say, but I don't have time to remember what it was...

I am a creationist, but not in that sense. I believe that science and spirituality (not necessariy Christianity) can easily go hand in hand. I don't think most people would consider me Christian anymore, although I do follow many of the basic teachings.

[inked]

Bombadillo, You wrote:
"I think Inked means to emphasize that societies don't create moralities as a whole, both because they only influence individual people's moralities within that society, and those individuals influence/compose society's morality. Am I right, Inked?"


You are correct. Societies do NOT create morality. The establish their own ethos as a subset of the moral nature of the universe by selection and emphasis from that overarching morality. That is why it is possible to make discernments and judgments amongst different cultures and societies. There really is an excellent discussion of this process in THE ABOLITION OF MAN by CS Lewis.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

art is anything born out of creativity, if even bringing pleasure to yet one being only, it is still bringing pleasure, music, sculpture, dance, drama, paintings, nay one might argue thought itself.

An apt analogy, one even used by St. Paul, "you are God's work of art in Christ Jesus".

Have you read THE MIND OF THE MAKER by Dorothy L. Sayers? You might find it very interesting in regard to the artist, the work, and the effects as an explication of the doctrine of the Trinity. Though, you might just prefer the insights of the artist and the art as considered in themselves.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well again it depends on your definitions. If "good" comes (directly or indirectly) from what we consider an "evil" act then is it truly evil? If someone with severely limited intelligence kills someone in cold blood was that an evil act? even if he didnt know any better? when you attack and kill something and it dies cruelly is that evil? but what if its your dinner? its death benefits you. does that suddenly make it NOT an evil act? but if a man does the same to another man because killing the other man is completely to his benefit (just like killing your dinner is) how can that suddenly be evil when the other one isnt? in some cultures public sacrifice was considered what you had to do to make the universe work right for the living. even the sacrificed often went to their deaths happily. were these evil acts of selfishness? owning a man and whipping him when he doesnt do what you tell him to was considered common place even in our culture less then 200 years ago. now it is considered abominably evil. why? is it simply a matter of "well they were wrong and now we are right" or is it simply the vagaries of culture and environment deciding where "evil" stands today.

Bringing good out of evil is the process of redemption, a very costly process (cf. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, ...well, the whole New Testament) for God and people of good will (Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela come to mind).

But that does not negate the evil, it takes it as raw material and conforms it to the purposes of God. This is why, in Christianity, suffering accepted and "given UP" may yet accomplish the will of God for the perfection of the marred creation. But the process is not magic. It is possible, chosen, and worked out in myriads of times and places, being effective as it is united with the eternal work of Christ. There are glimpses of this process in LoTR and in all great literature, in fact. Come to think of it, this is the same process by which an artist takes the angst and problems of life and redeems them by the art.

To bring good out of evil is a work of the will, not guaranteed of success in this life, but aspirational and intentional, one way in which all may participate in the co-creational process with God.